The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. Seems like the notability-based keep arguments are both substantial with sources and whatnot and widely shared with only weak rebuttals. And there is no consensus that something being trivia justifies deletion when it satisfies notability criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ælfwine of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a character who only appeared in early drafts of JRR Tolkien's work and who was later abandoned. This is trivia. Jack Upland (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, Thomas Honegger begs to differ, since he wrote up a significant chunk of prose on the character. BTW this is hardly an in-universe fan book; Michael D. C. Drout is legit. Also of note is this, some discussion of the character by Jane Chance--another more than legitimate scholar of Old English language and culture (everyone should read her Woman as Hero in Old English Literature). This is really cool--no, it's fascinating (an article that discusses the character extensively, in relation to Tolkien as well, in an edited collection published by D.S. Brewer). There's more, but that's enough Tolkiening for me. Not trivia. Keep--and someone please rewrite that article, someone who actually uses secondary sources and who understands what scholarship means, and let's also move this article to a better title--"of England"?. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, this article has been tagged for more references for a decade, so I don't think it's going to be improved any time soon. I don't think it's surprising that the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia has entry on this, but Wikipedia is not a Tolkien encyclopedia. Chance only seems to mention him in passing. The scholarly interest is in Tolkien's development of his fictional world and its connection with his academic interests. This issue is already covered in Tolkien's legendarium and The Book of Lost Tales. This is not a fully formed character. I don't think this is merely a case of producing a couple of sources. This is a derivative article. To have their own articles, fictional characters are supposed to have independent notability, like Ebenezer Scrooge and Sherlock Holmes. This character doesn't come anywhere close to that.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This unfully formed character is written up in three academic publications. There's a million others that easily fit your description of articles that should be deleted; this is not one of them. Drmies (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I did my own search and came with similar results to Drmies. Honegger's article on the topic in the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia is excellent - it doesn't get any better than this. See WP:BEFORE, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NEXIST. Andrew D. (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"It doesn't get any better than this". So you're saying that you wouldn't be able to find more sources on Sherlock Holmes?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does get better. Another encyclopedia is a WP:TETRIARY. We prefer SECONDARY sources coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Secondary sources are usually preferred when one is writing an article but that's not what we're doing here. Here, we are considering the feasibility of having an encyclopedia article about the topic. The existence of an article in another respectable encyclopedia is the best evidence that this is possible because it demonstrates that it has already been done. Andrew D. (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The entries in the Tolkien Encyclopedia range from crap to excellent. This one seems pretty solid, so it qualifies for my test of 'is this discussed in another encyclopedia' (with the qualifier that said discussion has to go beyond PLOT summary). This one goes beyond. So, yes, it's not like I want to see all fiction-related topics important, only the ones that don't go beyond plot summary plus occasional trivia. This one is, IMHO, covered in scholarship beyond that and can be kept (even if the current sourcing in the article is mostly worthless). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Scholarly RS (e.g.[1]) covers this as significant in the genesis of Tolkien's world. Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a lack of secondary sourcing showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  What about the secondary literature referred to in the responses above? And there is more, for example Fimi, Dimitra. "Mad" Elves and "elusive Beauty": Some Celtic Strands of Tolkien's Mythology. Folklore 117.2 (2006): 156-170, in which Ælfwine is described as being a key character in the establishment on non-Celtic faerie mythology? Alexbrn (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - I don't really see the merit in the above sources in relation to the character. It feels like anything relevant would best be covered elsewhere, general discussion of the mythology or the works in which the character is mentioned. If kept, it feels like one of those articles that will never amount to anything. TTN (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the condition the sources being identified here are added to the article... A further reading section is fine. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.